Reflectorites
Sorry this is late. I have so many outstanding messages to reply to
that I have now had to invent a new system of replying to them in
strict date order!
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 09:47:12 -0700, billwald@juno.com wrote:
>SJ>When I said I "have *never* yet had a reply", I mean to the actual
>>question: "What do you, an evolutionist, consider the most telling
>>points against evolution?"
BW>This is two questions: . . . against evolution, the lab science and
>against evolution as historical speculation.
I would be interested in hearing "the most telling points against" *either*
form of "evolution"!
BW>As far as I know (as a non-scientist), there are no telling points
>against evolution, the lab science
Actually there is. Here is one off the top of my head. DNA on its own
doesn't self-replicate leading to greater levels of complexity and
organisation. That requires the entire cellular *system* (another example of
irreducible complexity). On its own, DNA spirals downward to lower
levels of complexity:
"The DNA of an organism is not self-replicating; it is not an
independent 'replicator'. The only way in which the DNA can be
accurately and completely replicated is within the context of a
dividing cell; that is to say, it is the cell that reproduces. In a classic
experiment, Spiegelman in 1967 (Spiegelman, S. "An in vitro
analysis of a replicating molecule", American Scientist 55, 1967,
pp.221-64) showed what happens to a molecular replicating system
in a test-tube, without any cellular organization around it. The
replicating molecules (the nucleic acid templates) require an energy
source, building-blocks (i.e. nucleotide bases), and an enzyme to
help the polymerization process that is involved in self-copying of
the templates. Then away it goes, making more copies of the
specific nucleotide sequences that define the initial templates. But
the interesting result was that these initial templates did not stay the
same; they were not accurately copied. They got shorter and
shorter until they reached the minimal size compatible with the
sequence retaining self-copying properties. And as they got shorter,
the copying process went faster. So what happened was natural
selection in a test-tube: the shorter templates that copied
themselves faster become more numerous than the slower, while
the larger ones were gradually eliminated. This looks like Darwinian
evolution in a test-tube. But the interesting result was that this
evolution went one way: towards greater simplicity. Actual
evolution tends to go towards greater complexity, species
becoming more elaborate in their structure and behaviour, though
the process can also go in reverse, towards simplicity. But DNA on
its own can go nowhere but towards greater simplicity. In order for
evolution of complexity to occur DNA has to be within a cellular
context; the whole system evolves as a reproducing unit. So the
notion of an autonomous replicator is another spot on the leopard
that turns out to be an incorrect abstraction and it fades out."
(Goodwin B., "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots," 1995,
pp.34-35)
BW>On the other hand, there are "telling points" against evolution as
>historical speculation as there are against other historical seculations
>. . . Was Jesus the Mesiah, was Jefferson a Christian, which Europeans
>first "discovered" America? Was there an island or continant of Atlantis?
> Were there black Africans who flew around the Pyramids and were they
>shot down by European skeet shooters?
Interestingly Bill's position is pretty much the same as the Kansas State
Board of Education! They were willing to have examinable evolution that
could be empirically proved, which is just microevolution. What they did
not believe should be examinable (it could still be taught) was "evolution as
historical speculation", i.e. macroevolution.
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Finally, there is the question of natural selection. In one sense, the
influence of the theory of natural selection on sociology was enormous. It
created for a while, in fact, a branch of sociology. It seems now to be felt
that the influence on sociology of the doctrine of 'survival of the fittest' was
theoretically speaking, unfortunate, chiefly because it seemed to offer an
explanatory short cut, and encouraged social theorists to aspire to be
Darwin's when probably they should have been trying to be Linnaeuses or
Cuviers. As Professor MacRae points out, in sociology the principle
explains too much. Any state of affairs known to exist or to have existed
can be explained by the operation of natural selection. Like Hegel's
dialectic and Dr Chasuble's sermon on The Meaning of Manna in the
Wilderness, it can be made to suit any situation." (Burrow J.W., "Evolution
and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory," [1966], Cambridge
University Press: London, 1968, reprint, p.115)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 14 2000 - 18:25:39 EDT