Teaching Science (Another Derbyshire Classic!)

National Review Online ^ | August 30 2005 | John Derbyshire

[dsc]

"Well then it is only your opinion that Evolution somehow implies that life on Earth happened "by accident".

Dern, that one nearly slipped by me. It's Friday night here; it's been a long week, and ahm tard.

It is not my opinion that Evolution somehow implies that life on Earth happened by accident. I'm not going to repeat myself here, but there are several notes earlier in the thread in which I state the opposite.

[Mylo]

Seeings as how you don't have any facts on your side it would be a short "squabble".

[Agamemnon]

There has been an experiment done on natural selection and starvation resistance

Not in the work you cited, thimble-brain. Did you even read the abstract? Or could it just be that reading comprehension is simply not your strong suit?

A strain of flies selected for starvation resistance over several generations could over 90% survive a starvation that would kill 90% of unselected flies.

Did you happen to pay attention to who it was in fact was doing the selecting as they designed the experiment? They were likely wearing lab coats on their backs rather then wings.

Did you pay any attention to the conclusions at all?

Whaddya say let's deconstruct the abstract, shall we?

A good place to start is the opening statement: "The measurement of trade-offs may be complicated when selection exploits multiple avenues of adaptation or multiple life-cycle stages.[ i.e., Yikes! This SOB be was harder to quantify than we originally thought"]

Notice first off he (correctly, I might add) uses the term, adaptation. This is exactly what he observes. Adaptation and evolution are not scientifically interchangeable terms or concepts... or didn't you know that? Well, your side does tend to be pretty sloppy with the semantics, even in the hallowed "peer reviewed" literature.

Check out the leap and the contradiction in the same abstract:

"...second, larval lipid acquisition played a major role in the evolution of adult starvation resistance;....Patterns of genetic correlation may prove misleading unless multiple pleiotropic interconnections are resolved."

Translated: So, without being able to attribute anything to any specific genetic modification across the generations they still carelessly use the term "evolution" to describe the phenomenon. How wishful of them.

Any evolutionist who so carelessly confuses the concepts of mere adaptation with evolution is wishing far too hard for the evolutionary explanation to be correct such that he fails to manifest any amount of intellectual honesty and objectivity about what he did in fact observe.

I guess when you are publishing in a rag entitled, "Evolution," one is forced to pay fealty to the premise just to get published, whether or not their data actually supports the premise.

They as much a said they didn't observe specifically attributable genetic change due to the inherent complexity of the issue. Had he been an objective scientist as opposed to a biased sycophant he would have honestly and more correctly stated point number 2 thusly: "...second, larval lipid acquisition played a major role in the expression of adult starvation resistance.

Check out his third conclusion: "finally, increased larval growth rate and lipid acquisition had a fitness cost exacted in reduced viability and slower development.

A fitness cost is an example of evolution by natural selection now is it? Where did the notion of survival of the fittest go all of a sudden? The logic on your side is certifiably self-impailing! And in your own biased literature no less!

"This study implicates multiple life-cycle stages in the response to selection for the stress resistance of only one stage. Our starvation-selected populations illustrate a case that may be common in nature [i.e., they didn't observe this in nature occurring under conditions that he could even remotely term "natural selection" so they are still only speculating.]

Let's reprise his self-contradiction once more: Patterns of genetic correlation may prove misleading unless multiple pleiotropic interconnections are resolved" [i.e., no genetic correlation can in fact be made because too many variables exist in the example to be able to conclude anything.]

I know how desperately you want it say "natural selection," but it just doesn't. Don't try to over sell the observations. Somebody like me will actually look it up and call you on it

An analysis of their genetics show that some genes were selected for and some against, so that the new strain of fly was genetically distinct from their progenitors or unselected flies.

And in the end were they or were they not still Drosophila melanogaster? Were they incapable of mating with each other thereafter? Since they're all still Drosophila melanogaster and we have no new genetically distinct species as even the title of the paper suggests, how can you say with a straight face that you are observing evolution by natural selection, dear evo-dweeb?

Genetic adaptation already programmed into a gene-pool's inherent capability to develop resistances is not evidence of evolution at all. 90% expressed their preexistent ability to adapt, and they didn't become an entirely different organism in the process.

For all your assumption that natural selection was afoot in the designed experiment, can you posit a reason the term itself nor even the suggestion of the possibility thereof appears anywhere in the abstract? I can, though you may not want me to. But I just can't resist...

It's because it's not natural selection by any evidence and not evolution by any stretch of the imagination!

It's just another a**wipe of a paper discredited by its own internal contradictions.

Nice try.

[dsc]

"Seeings as how you don't have any facts on your side it would be a short "squabble".

Facts? You're quibbling over the definition of the word, "accident."

[Mylo]

So only if they are wearing wings rather than lab coats would it be evolution through natural selection?

[Thatcherite]

And how precisely does your link support your contention that peppered moths are "bad science"? Did you actually read the article?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Nice post. Thanks for the clarification!

Here's an article you might enjoy:

Neo-Darwinism: time to reconsider

The author sure does love to stir the pot. :)

[Agamemnon]

Great article!! Speaking of stirring a pot, if I were you I'd post it as a discussion thread of its own.

Maybe something with a title like "Neo-Darwinist proposes book burning -- will High Priests of Darwinism now strike a match to the faggots in their camp?" (OK, a few of you PC prudes out there got your panties in a wad over that header. As Rush might say, for all you folks out there in Rio Linda, "faggots" are bundles of sticks the same way "farding" is the act of applying one's make-up. Lighten-up.). Gotta admit -- the title will likely get the readership.

Or how about, "Neo-Darwinist Stephan Hawking attempts in vain to censor and supress open scientific debate on the merits of naturalism."

These threads will likely be humming, if not glowing red-hot and your valuable resource won't find itself only at position #427 on a thread where the opposition has already been so thorughly deconstructed.

[Mylo]

Yes, but it is a fact that atomic formation in quantum mechanics are random. Does this imply that the universe formed "on accident" or just that it was formed using a random mechanism?

Do you think that quantum mechanics deny the existence of God?

[dsc]

"Yes, but it is a fact that atomic formation in quantum mechanics are random. Does this imply that the universe formed "on accident" or just that it was formed using a random mechanism?"

I don't see that it answers that theological question at all.

"Do you think that quantum mechanics deny the existence of God?"

No, although I think some people try to misuse them in that way.

[Mylo]

Well I don't think quantum mechanics presupposes that the universe formed on "accident" either; just because the mechanism of atomic formation is random.

Neither do I believe that evolution presupposes that life evolves by "accident" either; just because the mechanism of DNA mutation is random.

See the analogy?

[dsc]

"See the analogy?"

Yes, I see the analogy, but I don't know why you're making that argument to me. I never took the opposite position.

[Mylo]

You said:

The only point of disagreement is this:

"It all happened by accident."
"It happened the way it did because God wanted it to."

You set up the dichotomy of either it "happened by accident" or "because God wanted it to". When I said that the mechanism of mutation (and atomic formation) is random, not accidental, you said it was a distinction without a difference.

I say there is a WORLD of difference; and if one thinks that a random mechanism of evolution presupposes the nonexistence of God; one must admit that the random mechanism of atomic formation must also.

[dsc]

Where you went with that is so far removed from what I intended that I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how to answer.

For me, the answer to this...

"It all happened by accident."
"It happened the way it did because God wanted it to."

...is not to be found in any real or apparent randomness in the natural world.

I'm surprised to hear that you inferred that I think a random mechanism of evolution presupposes the nonexistence of God. Some people think so; I'm not one of them.

By the way, you have still to offer a meaningful explanation of the difference between a given photon randomly striking a given cell in a given living thing at a given instant, and the same thing happening accidentally.

[Mylo]

Mutation is random, it is not accidental. The process of replicating DNA itself causes mutation. The mutation can occur at any random codon. It is not an "accident" because it is not unexpected, nor is not undesirable for a species to have mutations (although the specific mutation is probably neutral or harmful).


ran·dom
Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely

ac·ci·dent An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm. An unforeseen incident. Lack of intention; chance.

[dsc]

The only part of the definition of "accident" that applies to my argument is the last: "Lack of intention; chance."

I would also point out that, WRT mutation, it is difficult to demonstrate that "all outcomes are equally likely." Further, mutations are only described by a probability distribution if their occurence is governed by chance.

[Mylo]

Oh absolutely. Some mutations are far more common than others, so "all outcomes are equally likely" is a definition of random that most certainly doesn't apply to mutation.

My only point, and I think that you understand it, is that just because something happens randomly (like mutation or atomic formation) doesn't mean that it happened by accident (i.e. without cause or purpose or lack of intention); and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean that there isn't a God who has a plan a cause a purpose or an intention that is served by this random mechanism.

Atomic formation is random. Yet given the conditions of the universe, atomic formation is inevitable. Something that is inevitable is hardly accidental.

Mutation is random. Yet given the conditions of life on earth, mutation and natural selection are inevitable. Something that is inevitable is hardly accidental.