>>Hi Chris,
>>Descent with modification existed as a concept before Darwin. Darwin's
>>only contribution was the mechanism - tiny random mutations, which
>>natural selection created into complex biological systems by picking and
>>choosing. Darwin himself stated that if any biological system proved to
>>be too complex to be created in this way, his system would prove to be invalid.
Susan
>Darwin knew nothing about mutations. Genes were rediscovered about 40
>years after he died (I think that's the 2nd or 3rd time I've told you
>that.) He only knew about variation which is obvious to the casual
>observer. The Darwin quote that you mention above is always quoted by
>creationists without the last sentence "And none have yet been found."
>That was 140 years ago and *still* none have yet been found. Behe's
>examples of "systems too complex to have been have been created this way"
>have proven to be untrue one by one.
Chris
And, I might add, at the expense of making any *legitimate* ID science look
bad by association (similar remarks apply to Dembski's obvious corruption
of the concept of design itself in order to *seem* to prove to the
too-casual reader something that he does not even provide good support
for). I don't know if there *is* any legitimate ID science going on, but,
if there is, these attempts at "proving" it will make it *harder* to get
serious scientists to consider it, having been burned so many times before.
>>Some scientists, such as Behe, now claim that many, if not all,
>>biological systems are too complex to have been "created" by natural selection.
Susan
>One of Behe's examples was shown to have an evolutionary history the same
>year his book was published. Behe is betting on our continued ignorance.
>It's a bad bet.
Chris
Also, weren't you the one who was talking about how good it is to be
skeptical of the claims of scientists?
Another counterexample to one of his main claims was published in the early
eighties. As Kenneth Miller points out, it is one thing for a person not to
have read every paper in every journal that comes out. But it is quite
another to make major absolute positive claims on the basis of *not* having
read of a counterexample when one knows one has not read substantial
portions of the literature. Making such dogmatic claims without basis, on
the premise that the reader will accept one's mere *credentials* as
argument enough, is intellectually dishonest. He should either have
refrained from making the claim or have checked his facts first.
Here's the offending claim:
>>>There is no publication in the scientific literature--in prestigious
>>>journals, specialty journals, or books--that describes how molecular
>>>evolution of any real, complex biochemical system either did occur or
>>>even might have occurred. [DBB, p.185]
Chris
Yet, when an evolutionist makes a claim like this, even if it is
demonstrably true, you accuse him/her of dogmatism. How wonderfully biased
and selective you are.
Bertvan
>>If, as you claim, "most scientists" no longer regard Darwin's theory the
>>explanation of evolution, all they have to do is say so. Much of the
>>controversy would disappear, for it is not "evolution" that most critics
>>question, but specifically "the creation of complex biological systems by
>>RM&NS".
Susan
>And I've shown you over and over that "most critics" of evolution object
>to common descent and the long history of life, both of which they think
>conflicts with the Bible (they don't). "Random" mutations and natural
>selection are your personal bugbears. Most creationists now accept at
>least "micro" evolution, which is the only kind that actually exists. They
>think that "macro" evolution is something special and magical that can't
>exist because it would mean that Earth has a long history and that all
>plants and animals have a shared ancestry.
Chris
I think most scientists *do* regard Darwin's theory, in broad outline, as
the explanation for evolution. Some, like Margulis, reject the old view
that separate evolutionary branches never trade genetic material, but do
not regard the basic process as being Darwinian (i.e., naturalistic, not
directed by intelligence, and a process of modification and selection).
Others would point out that many aspects of it have been deepened or filled
in since Darwin's day, especially with the unlocking of the general way in
which genetics works when DNA was discovered and analyzed. *Very* little of
Darwin's original theory has needed to be discarded. Even punk eek is
little more than a restatement of Darwin's remark:
>>>But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes
>>>on so regularly as is represented in the diagram [showing evenly-spaced
>>>lines representing speciation], though in itself made somewhat
>>>irregular [different sub-branch points, etc.], nor that it goes on
>>>continuously; it is far more probably that each form remains for long
>>>periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.
Bertvan
>>Some people use the term "imperfect copying" (of DNA I assume) instead of
>>random mutation. This language certainly implies "accidental" and
>>"lacking intelligence or purpose".
Susan
>you are correct that mutations are often replication errors and therefore
>there is no direction or purpose to them. But why must there be purpose at
>the microscopic level?
>
>You have been talking about "cell intelligence" and the more you talk
>about it the more it sounds like variation and natural selection. Your New
>Age friends would probably want to opt for something like a soul that
>inhabits all living things and "directs" their evolution--and leave the
>microbiology out of it. That still wouldn't explain why some souls direct
>their organisms to extinction--the Irish Elk leaps to mind here and, of
>course, all the dinosaurs. Perhaps sometimes even on the cosmic level shit
>just happens and souls move on.
>
>I know the seeming lack of "purpose" in evolution is what drives a lot of
>anti-evolutionists. I've had people tell me "I don't believe in God but I
>believe everything that happens, happens for a purpose." I've never quite
>understood it. They are willing to give up belief in a deity, but stuff
>has to happen for a purpose. Why do we need some kind of cosmic purpose?
>Humans are perfectly capable of making their own meanings and directing
>their own purposes. I don't want to hear that some kid burned alive an a
>house fire because "God (or the Universe) had a plan." I don't want to
>have anything to do with a being that has plans that include stuff like
>that. Personally, I don't like the idea of having my purposes possibly
>being thwarted by some invisible force that has a plan or a purpose laid
>out *for* me. When the bumper sticker "Shit Happens" first appeared I
>absolutely loved it. It was a joy and a liberation. Sometimes things just
>happen. There was no purpose in the little boy being burned to death in
>the fire, it just happened and it was a bad thing. There's no need for
>invisible beings to blame for it.
>
>The universe has a lot going for it. It's very grand and beautiful. I
>don't really think it needs one of the species on one of the planets in
>one of the solar systems at the edge of one of the galaxies to fantasize
>something extra to improve it.
>
>Susan
>--------
>
>Always ask. Hang out with people who make you laugh. Love as many people
>as you can. Read everything you can get your hands on. Take frequent naps.
>Watch as little television as you can stand. Tell people what you want. Do
>what you love as much as you can. Dance every day.
>--------
>Please visit my website:
>http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 03 2000 - 16:56:20 EST