Posted on 06/17/2002 3:10:50 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.
To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution. [Rebuttal omitted to save space. See the original article.]
CONCLUSION
"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)
Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.
Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.
The Author(s):
John Rennie is editor in chief of Scientific American.
There certainly is, and this is another example of evolutionists taking both sides of a question. They say that if a mutation is favorable, it will soon take over the whole species. They say that if a mutation is neutral it will also spread to the whole species. Of course this is contradictory. Because in a species with (say) a thousand members the new mutant is one and the old alleles are 1999 a neutral gene will by simple math be almost certainly lost within a few generations.
It bears repeating - sometimes enhanced levels of a gene product can enhance survival. Remember the bacteria in xylose. At that point you are cleared for takeoff.
It bears repeating - sometimes enhanced levels of a gene product can enhance survival. Remember the bacteria in xylose. At that point you are cleared for takeoff.
There may be a few cases where two exact same genes are beneficial, but I doubt it happens very often. First of all, you must realize that a gene is not 'on' all the time. So leaving it on a little longer can do the job just as well almost all the time rather than having two identical genes (see the article I quoted from regarding chimps and humans on gene expression a few posts back). So this is not usual and cannot be helpful in the vast majority of cases. Again, we must refer also to #6 in post# 1605. A gene to work has to get linked to the rest of the organism. This is a big problem, perhaps the biggest problem for evolutionists and a problem which those 'fools' who preceded Darwin were well aware of but did not have the means of proving. Now the proof has been found.
Unfortunately, it does your argument no good - because we're talking about a neutral mutation. With a neutral mutation, it doesn't matter whether the mutated gene is dominant or recessive. The carrier organism will be just as likely to live to pass it on if it's expressed as if it is suppressed.
Again: Mendelian genetics does not help you.
Oh BTW, did I mention that 5 of my 10 cousins have naturally green hair? Exactly 50% of them, as it turns out. It seems Uncle Lou passed on his brand-new mutation to five children. And they're all just as healthy as their brown-haired siblings. And since we're in the Gen-X age, enough people think their green hair is way cool, so they have no problem finding mates. (I suspect Aunt Hilda never noticed it because Uncle Lou was bald as far back as I can remember! :-) I wonder how many green-haired grandchildren Uncle Lou will end up with? Twenty, perhaps?
Why? More clotting factors, more growth factors, more immunogenic factors are three examples I can think of off the top of my head which at some point were shown to have beneficial additive effects certain contexts.
First of all, you must realize that a gene is not 'on' all the time.
Many genes become constiuitively expressed once a stage in development has been reached. Besides, so what if the gene is not "on" all of the time anyway? If at the appropriate time, more of the gene product means a better chance for survival for the organism, who cares? Your rules are very arbitrary.
So leaving it on a little longer can do the job just as well almost all the time rather than having two identical genes
This is probably a bit trickier to produce than simply duplicating the sucker.
A gene to work has to get linked to the rest of the organism.
A duplicated gene will have all of the promoter elements necessary for its expression.
This is a big problem, perhaps the biggest problem for evolutionists and a problem which those 'fools' who preceded Darwin were well aware of but did not have the means of proving. Now the proof has been found.
??
What the heck are you talking about? How am I associated with that statement? This is coming from someone with the gall to post the Shermer worm-waste!! Hilarious!
How does being a creationist, one who believes God created everything, require me to follow and be involved in every creationists discussion? I happen to discuss what I want to discuss not what others would have me discuss. I did not post anything in relation to 1605 or whatever from gore3000. I didn't come running to jennyp everytime a Darwininian made what I considered a bonehead error and ask jennyp to be involved in the discussion. If it is something I posted I would be required to defend it. It is not my post so I choose not to be involved. Had I commented, I would be involved. Had you asked, innocently with no ulterior motive, I might have answered, but your transparent attempt to pit me against someone else is not to my liking.
On the other hand, your posted nonsense from Shermer involves you directly in the maintenance of that posted position. Any one else who openly admires that position with statements like "Great post. It reminds me of your long-ago example of card-shuffling, where the cards have velcro strips to simulate the way chemical compounds are formed, so that the required sequence pops up after only a few shuffles.", advocates that position and is answerable. However, you do not see me hounding those individuals for a renouncement of that position. I am not into Inquisition.
The argument stands or falls based upon things outside of my opinion of the argument. If you can't argue your points, don't expect me to argue them for you.
A duplicated gene will have all of the promoter elements necessary for its expression.
This is just wishful thinking on your part and not fact. There is no reason at all why such a thing would happen in a random mutation. In addition you do not seem to fully understand the problem. Different functions require different kinds of cells. You need to have cells assigned to do the gene's work and to be of the proper constitution. A new gene, even a duplicate would not possibly have such a thing in the genome. In addition to which if it was just a xerox copy, it just would at most double the functioning of the old gene which is very likely to be harmful.
More Darwinian just-so fecal matter. Mind reading is also implied in your "post". No meaningful information is available to you so you attempt some sort of oblique insult. I post in colors to make it easy to differentiate the sources. Red is for the post to which I am replying, black is my information, and blue is for other citations. You probably couldn't figure that out?
Please. Batman can't even explain the math behind his belief that the Earth moved from orbiting Saturn to orbiting the Sun with nearly zero eccentricity in the resulting orbit. And he calls everyone else idiots. Go figure.
Point made.
For that there is Confederate gray. Blue is for utterly hopeless causes.
This is just wishful thinking on your part and not fact. There is no reason at all why such a thing would happen in a random mutation. -you
Not wishful thinking at all. It is entirely plausible that the promoter remains intact after gene duplication. Initially, you have simply duplicated an entire stretch of DNA and end up with an identical copy with promoter, introns and the whole shebang.
A new gene, even a duplicate would not possibly have such a thing in the genome.
Completely flase assumption. I gave you several examples where amplification of a gene product could be beneficial. It could also have an indirect effect on the phenotype. In the case of an amplified gene, you already have the machinery in place in the appropriate cells to handle the augmentation in expression.
In addition to which if it was just a xerox copy, it just would at most double the functioning of the old gene which is very likely to be harmful.
Why would it be necessarily be harmful? On what are you basing your assumptions?
Even if the amplified gene is completely neutral, there should be instances where the duplication happens to occur on "good" DNA carrying alelles which already endow the organism with a better chance for survival. If they are close enough to each other they are effectively linked.
Do you really know what you are talking about here Gore? Have you ever worked with transgenic mice? I can think of one example where a gene was engineered to be overexpressed and in the "on" state continuously. Not only that but the gene product was constituitively active! The mice were FINE.
That pretty much says that after 10 million years of breeding like that while humans breed the way we do, sea lions should by all rights be running this planet. What about it? Why aren't they??You aren't serious are you?
They have in fact evolved to rule their specific niche . They are experts at catching fish, swimming, insulating themselves from the cold and are perfectly happy where they are. They aren't adapted to live in other climate/locales etc. Those spots were already taken. This should be obvious.
The word NICHE is a sort of a magic formula with you guys, isn't it? I mean, you use it to try to cover 40% or thereabouts of all the #### you don't have rational explainations for.
So you get some creature which is perfectly adapted for its own "niche(TM)" and, according to the theory one surmises, the only way the creature would ever evolve after that would be for the environment to change, and new or different features to become advantageous. Nonetheless, sexual selection would not allow it. The females would go right on selecting against any male which tried to adapt outside the species boundaries. Or is some females velociraptor supposed to have said to herself:
"Say, you know, that Alvin over there sure looks weird with those wings and that beak, but that's sure gonna be useful for flying some day...
You don't know much about data compression do you?
Some research indicates amplification effects are common and often render duplication mutations favorable.
The results of this analysis indicate that recently duplicated paralogs evolve faster than orthologs with the same level of divergence and similar functions, but apparently do not experience a phase of neutral evolution. We hypothesize that gene duplications that persist in an evolving lineage are beneficial from the time of their origin, due primarily to a protein dosage effect in response to variable environmental conditions; duplications are likely to give rise to new functions at a later phase of their evolution once a higher level of divergence is reached.From here.
One of the more spectacular examples is this one, which gore has seen and forgotten dozens of times. Other people have other implausible excuses for ignoring it.
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.