Junk Science Exposed In Evolutionary Theory

OrthodoxNet.com ^ | 12/16/2009 | Babu G. Ranganathan

[ezfindit]

Millions of high school and college biology textbooks teach that research scientist Stanley Miller, in the 1950’s, showed how life could have arisen by chance. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by chance. But, it’s not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. If they’re not in the right sequence the protein molecules won’t work. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules.

[colorado tanker]

he just had no idea how it could be treated as a scientific theory

That's my understanding, too. Just speculation on his part.

[ElectricStrawberry]

From one that does protein chemistry and antibody-antigen reactions all day...

Very well put.

[ElectricStrawberry]

True indeed....my first PI was a trained entomologist and immunology of infectious disease type specializing in vector-borne diseases, mainly ticks and skeeters, and was on the review board of a few journals in his time and absolutely LIVED to find faults in submitted works.....it was his second career. To him, finding faults in others works was “the real science”...

[AndyTheBear]

That's my understanding, too. Just speculation on his part.

There seems to me a scale here, where we go from science to speculation:

1) Micro evolution: something fairly well established by science.

2) Theory of macro evolution--species can change from one to another: the prevailing theory which actively ridicules competitors...but not really a hard science. The empirical evidence lends itself to hand waving arguments both for and against. One can attempt to apply the scientific method to test this theory, but there are too many confounding factors to make such investigations definitive (as there are in psychology for instance).

3) Assertion of a single common ancestor of all species: realm of speculation. Not really testable.

4) Presumption that that single ancestor must have sprang from inorganic matter by some kind of chance (either here or on some other planet): Wholly speculative, neither testable with science, nor something which can be derived from reason.

5)Problem of where matter/energy/stuff itself came from (for which life could later spring). A compelling philosophical case for a transcendent super nature. But not something which is testable by science except on occasion and indirectly. For instance the Big Bang theory which suggests that the universe has not simply always existed--a notion which if accepted forces a reasonable man to reject naturalism.

So on the one end we have philosophy and the other end we have the scientific method as the best ways to approach the questions. In the middle is no-mans land.

[NicknamedBob]

Several comments in response:

Micro vs. Macro-evolution -- an argument for those unwilling to accept definitions. All evolution is micro, but it is as inexorable as erosion. You seem to think that "micro evolution" is like some editor tweaking a submission. A bit of spelling correction here, and deleting a superfluous adjective there, and voila! the work is complete!

The work is never complete. We are all too wearily aware that evolution occurs because of random events. Let us surmise that an isolated species has had more than enough minor changes to exceed any definition of micro, and yet it may or may not be a new species. What defines whether it is or not?

Generally, it is accepted that it would be a new species if it cannot successfully interbreed with other species. Then it is necessarily on its own, to prosper or perish, as fortune determines. Eventually, it may go on to parent yet more divisions, more species. Or it may simply end like the dodo.

Such isolations can occur in just a few generations, or over thousands and thousands of years. The problem is, micro just doesn't know when to stop.

"a single common ancestor" -- Well, if you think multiple origin makes more sense, you can go with that. Some forest fires have multiple points of ignition, caused by lightning strikes. And many earthquakes are preceded by "micro-quakes".

Life is pretty diverse, but not quite so diverse that some relationship seems unlikely. The discovery and analysis of DNA gave us the opportunity to see whether, and to what degree, we are all related. Not just speculation, but chemical results. And guess what? We're all related.

"that single ancestor must have sprang from inorganic matter by some kind of chance" -- Here you are entirely correct. This is neither testable nor deducible. What will we conclude if we find life existing on other worlds?

"where matter/energy/stuff itself came from" -- What good is time and space? If you had the ability to create time and space, what could you use it for? Maybe it's just an arbitrary, random event, like the dance of dust motes in sunlight.

"the Big Bang theory which suggests that the universe has not simply always existed--a notion which if accepted forces a reasonable man to reject naturalism."

The Big Bang Theory comes out of simple forensic analysis. When it was deduced that galaxies were moving apart from each other, it became a natural mental exercise to wonder what it would look like to reverse the action. Reversing the action makes it look as though there was a tremendous explosion about thirteen billion years ago.

But I cannot infer a reason that a man should reject naturalism, or even alcoholism, simply because the Universe has not always existed. Who gives a snap what was happening thirteen billion years ago?

[AndyTheBear]

But I cannot infer a reason that a man should reject naturalism, or even alcoholism, simply because the Universe has not always existed. Who gives a snap what was happening thirteen billion years ago?

Prior to the Big Bang theory, naturalists viewed the universe as simply eternal. They would not allow for a beginning because that would mean defending the notion that stuff could simply come from from nothing.

Along came observations that the universe seemed to have a definitive beginning. If this is correct then there seems to be some less desirable more speculative positions naturalism must retreat to:

a) That stuff really can just pop out of nothing...and yet not do to any magic or super natural influence.

b) That the Big Bang is just a cycle in an eternal universe, that may have collapsed into itself.

c) That the "universe" is really a part of a larger natural world (or "cosmos") which is eternal, from which the universe sprang as a subset.

None of these positions is particularly attractive, but I think the least "fantastic" and most attractive to a naturalist would be "b". And on that point, I understand that the physicists do not think that the universe is going to collapse, but its just a one way ride to heat death...if this is so science is sending even more rain on naturalisms parade.

Last I heard, the naturalists in physics were all about multi-universe cosmos theories, so I guess the option "c" is the latest rationalization. The interesting, and actually entertaining to us non-naturalist part about this is that they have to presume an infinite number of these universes in order to make the systems they invent eternal.

[AndyTheBear]

Maybe it's just an arbitrary, random event, like the dance of dust motes in sunlight.

The motion of dust in sunlight is fairly arbitrary. Just as an important difficult decision a man makes after careful consideration and reflection is deliberate...but wait...along comes naturalism...and sorry I guess we must conclude they are both just arbitrary and random...as is everything else such as reason and morality.

Sorry, naturalism asks me to conclude too many idiotic things, so I can't accept it.

[NicknamedBob]

I don’t see the limitations on how the Universe came to be as having anything to do with my understanding of naturalism.

The way I see it, Naturalism would say, “What is, is.” It wouldn’t concern itself with how it came to be.

Either the Universe popped into existence all at one time, as described in the Big Bang model, or it has been there all along, with matter popping into existence from nothingness at random intervals in empty space as in the discredited Steady State model.

Or maybe it is cyclic, expanding and contracting. Aside from being something to talk about and think about, what practical relevance does it have to how one chooses to live his life? One can be evil for any reason, or good for none at all.

Some of us ask these questions because we seek understanding. Others seek guidance. They’re probably on equal footing with getting a satisfactory answer.

[AndyTheBear]

The way I see it, Naturalism would say, “What is, is.” It wouldn’t concern itself with how it came to be.

Just about every philosophy says "What is, is". If that is all you mean by Naturalism than its is certainly easy to defend, but is sadly void of any content.

My understanding of Naturalism is one where it is more ambitious. It includes the assumption that no events may have super natural causes. For example if I claim I recovered from a sickness because Jesus healed me, it would say, no, you must have gotten healed from natural causes. And if I claimed something that excluded natural causes such as my leg suddenly grew back in an instant then it would say, that I was either delusional or lying, or possibly nature works quite a bit differently than we thought. However it would never allow for a super natural agent such as God to have decided to heal my leg.

Naturalism presumes that there is no God, or other super natural agents that transcend nature.

[Stultis]

Which came first the dense-boned or hollow-boned dinosaurs?

I'm not up to speed on that, but I'm fairly confident air-filled bones are only found among theropod dinosaurs (bipedal, primarily carnivorous, saurischians such as Tyrannosaurus, Deinonychus, etc). So the hollow bones came later.

Since some reptiles/dinosaurs are warm-blooded and some are cold-blooded (as you seem to indicate) what might have been the sequence of events?

Again, not up to speed. I read bits and pieces of the research, and many popular accounts, back in the 1980's, when the cold-blooded / warm-blooded debate started to heat up. But I haven't kept up to date much since.

Certainly, considering their diversity, vast differences in size, different eating habits, and etc, dinosaurs as a whole must have had many different thermoregulation strategies and regimes. We see the same in living creatures. There are several instances of living "cold-blooded" creatures where certain groups/species have the ability to elevate metabolic rates, even to the point of maintaining constant or near constant body temperatures. Off the top of my head I know that reptiles like sea turtles, and fish like tuna and some sharks, have this ability. OTOH, some mammals, namely the monotremes, have low metabolic rates and are often functionally close to being ectotherms (warmed by their environment rather than internally).

My best guess is that there were probably both full (or close to full) ectotherms and full (or close to full) endotherms among dinosaurs, and various in-between conditions. But understanding the details of thermoregulation has been difficult and taken many years to even partially sort out, even among living animals. So I'm not going to delve into this issue having not kept up with the latest controversies.

Although I will say that, AFAIK, it does remain a controversial area, with multiple competing hypotheses. I do get the impression, however, that most scientists think at least some dinosaurs were full endotherms or close to being.

Archaeopteryx supposedly proved that birds came from dinosaurs....except that was refuted by many bird experts (See Alan Feduccia)who have concluded that Archaeopteryx was 100% bird.

Yes. Archaeopteryx is 100% bird. That is, after scientists found a specimen with feathers, and then noticed faint feather impressions on older specimens. Before that it was 100% reptile.

Everything is 100% percent something. It is an artifact of the biological classification system that you have to put each individual species into one or another larger group, even if has characteristics of more than one group. In those cases you have to, often somewhat arbitrarily, pick one or a few characteristics you consider most characteristic to make the division.

Feathers used to be the deciding character for birds. If it had feathers, it was a bird. If it didn't, it wasn't. Of course this blew up when feathered dinosaurs were discovered.

Feduccia does indeed hold a minority position arguing that feathered dinosaurs (those with clear, pennaceous, as opposed to downy, feathers -- he thinks the downy feathers so-called are really something else) are actually misidentified birds and not dinosaurs at all. BUT THIS JUST ILLUSTRATES HOW CLOSE THE TWO GROUPS REALLY ARE!

[NicknamedBob]

"My understanding of Naturalism is one where it is more ambitious. It includes the assumption that no events may have super natural causes. For example if I claim I recovered from a sickness because Jesus healed me, it would say, no, you must have gotten healed from natural causes. And if I claimed something that excluded natural causes such as my leg suddenly grew back in an instant then it would say, that I was either delusional or lying, or possibly nature works quite a bit differently than we thought. However it would never allow for a super natural agent such as God to have decided to heal my leg."

"Naturalism presumes that there is no God, or other super natural agents that transcend nature."

In searching about for a proper response to your post, I came across an interesting article. In a nutshell, the contention is that if you want to talk about thinking, it is necessary to think about talking.

This is a long article, but it is surprisingly rewarding. I also feel confidant that you will learn a few new words, as well as a new way of looking at a few things. You'll be surprised at which names and historical events get mentioned.

Initially, I researched Naturalism. I can see why you think it is a limited philosophy. It is by definition a limited philosophy.

Then I went looking for Scientific Empiricism. Gradually I came to a focus on the linked article. This is interesting stuff. Try not to discard it as too convoluted, off the subject, or difficult to understand. After all, if this can exist in our world ...

... then such as the rest of us can comprehend the meaning and import of the article I linked.

Where does it lead?

To the question why Plato had not developed science, ... because he got things backward.

... Plato started from rhetoric, which had displaced myth and poetry as processors of knowledge. But rhetoric was based upon persuasion in the vernacular. ... Consequently it was unsuited for dealing with the Form of wisdom in the realm of Idea.

Later, speaking not of Plato, but of the author of this philosophy ...

... he was looking for rules for the behavior of phenomena rather than causal properties of matter as such.

.

Anyway, this is going to require a great deal more study and reflection, for me as well as anyone else who wants to follow these faintly echoing footsteps.

[Tax-chick]

Thanks, Bob. I’ll print it out later when I can use the computer that’s hooked to the printer. DP is configuring something at this time.

But honestly, I don’t believe Marilyn read a single word of Joyce.

[NicknamedBob]

According to her, she read them, but she found them difficult.

I love the photo.

[Tax-chick]

but she found them difficult

No really? It reminds me of the scene in "Northern Exposure" where Shelly is reading a D.H. Lawrence novel that she found supporting a wobbly table-leg. "I mean, I'm trying to read it ... but there's, like, so many words and everything!"

[AndyTheBear]

Initially, I researched Naturalism. I can see why you think it is a limited philosophy. It is by definition a limited philosophy.

Indeed their definition is close to what I had in mind.

I used to think of Naturalism as compelling, and even felt threatened by it (as I was raised Episcopalian). However, I have an insatiable appetite for thinking things through, and eventually realized Naturalism had irreconcilable flaws. After that I resented the hold it had on me, and I currently am inclined to lampoon it.

[shield]

More fraud by the evildoers.

[NicknamedBob]

"... and eventually realized Naturalism had irreconcilable flaws. After that I resented the hold it had on me, and I currently am inclined to lampoon it."

I don't think that's necessary. I don't really see anyone defending it to the exclusion of other philosophies, and it is somewhat self-lampooning in its definitive deficiencies.

Occasional posters will hark to the benefits of keeping emotionalism out of scientific investigations, but most will admit that invisible is not identical to nonexistent.

[Tax-chick]

Got it printed - 18 pages.

[BibChr]

Dude, you’re just not thinking right.

Millions and millions of years of absolutely pointless and useless intermediate forms that served no purpose and left no evidence.

Now, get back in line!

[NicknamedBob]

"Millions and millions of years of absolutely pointless and useless intermediate forms that served no purpose and left no evidence."

Trial and error takes a lot of trials, and a lot of errors.