Darwin: Headed for the Ash-Heap

And Rightlyso...Conservative Book Club ^ | 1-20-2006 | Jeffrey Rubin

[joyspring777]

Of the three intellectual pillars of modern liberalism -- Marx, Darwin, and Freud -- only one is still standing. Marx fell in 1989, along with the Berlin Wall. Freud's demise is more difficult to date; suffice it to say that, by the end of the century, no one, with the possible exception of Woody Allen, took him seriously any more. Darwin, I predict, will suffer a similar fate within the next ten to fifteen years.

That may seem counterintuitive in light of recent legal and public-relations setbacks suffered by critics of Darwinism -- notably a federal judge's decision forbidding the teaching of "Intelligent Design" (a term for one aspect of the anti-Darwin critique) in Dover, Pa., public schools. But it is a sign of weakness, not strength, when one side in an ostensibly scientific debate resorts to silencing the other. If the case for Darwin is such a slam-dunk, why not welcome the chance for its opponents to make fools of themselves?

No, Darwinists are running scared. Even their attempts to declare victory on scientific grounds betray more than a whiff of desperation. Case in point: the year-end edition of the journal Science hailing "evolution in action" as its "Breakthrough of the Year." Among the "dramatic discoveries" said by the magazine to make 2005 "a banner year for uncovering the intricacies of how evolution actually proceeds," none in itself demonstrates whether evolution proceeds, and they only shed light on how if you first assume that it does.

Here, for instance, is Science editor Donald Kennedy describing "one of my favorites" in this evidentiary explosion: "the European blackcap, a species of warbler that spends the winter in two separate places but then reunites to breed, with birds selecting mates from those who shared the same wintering ground. Assortative mating of this kind can produce a gradual differentiation of the two populations. Biologists have shown that new species can arise because of geographic barriers that separate subpopulations, but the divergent evolution shown in this case could result in new species arising within a single range."

If it seems that the bare facts adduced here don't quite amount to a clear instance of "evolution in action," that's because they don't. At best, they demonstrate what's known as "microevolution" -- modification within a species -- which no anti-Darwinist disputes. What is disputed is "macroevolution," the change of one species into another, which is the central claim of Darwinism. If macroevolution occurs, the "assortative mating" of the European blackcap might help to explain how it works, but it does nothing to prove that it does occur.

The fact is,nothing proves that macroevolution occurs, or ever has occurred. And, at a certain point, the absence of proof, especially where it ought to be abundant, constitutes, if not positive disproof, at least strong reasons for doubt. According to Darwin's theory of descent through gradual modification (by way of random mutation and natural selection), the fossil record should contain near-infinite numbers of ever-so-slightly-different "transitional" forms, and even greater numbers of evolutionary dead ends. Despite the best efforts of archaeologists, not even a hint of that has materialized in the fossil record. Instead, what we should not expect to find, according to Darwin's theory, is what we do find: the sudden appearance of innumerable distinct species, as we have in the so-called Cambrian Explosion.

Needless to say, a debate like this can't be settled in the space of a column. Neither, however, can it be settled by shutting out the other side. Darwinists, of course, would have us believe that there is no other side, only a bunch of anti-science religious fanatics who don't deserve to be heard. That approach can succeed, but not for long. As I say, I give them fifteen years, tops.

[Coyoteman]

I do NOT deny science, I reject the religion of evolution.

It sounds like you reject the science of evolution on religious grounds.

You don't reject the other sciences, just evolution.

How about archaeology, sedimentology, and radiocarbon dating, which together show the global flood never happened. Do you reject those fields too?

How about geology and radiometric dating, which show the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Do you reject those fields too?

How about mtDNA testing and other forms of evolutionary biology, which show that there is a genetic continuity between early, pre-5,000 Native American groups in the New World and later, post-4,000 year ago groups (i.e., showing there was no global flood in the 4,000-5,000 year range). Do you reject those fields too?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Stultis]

CHALLENGE!

OK, I have a request for all you creationists here who insist that there aren't any "missing links" or transitional fossils between ancient apes & modern man [...] Now, I want you to tell me precisely which of the other fossils: B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M are. Since you deny that there are any transitional fossils, please [classify them as either ape or human].

RESPONSE!!!

No replies.

Funny. Should be easy. You know, unless there are a bunch of transitionals in there.

[festus]

Now see what you started ;-)

[VadeRetro]

Re: Challenge.

Let me throw some more fuel on the fire with my standard template for creationist "no transitionals" dialogue. I say it almost always follows this stereotypical pattern and it's a farce.

That said, has anyone posted Ichneumon's "fish to elephant in 50 steps of microevolution" yet?

[Constantine XIII]

LOL, brutal.

[Constantine XIII]

If there's gravity, why doesn't the moon fall down?!!111eleven

[freedumb2003]

Yes I agree religion should be in religious studies which includes evolution.

I knew if I was patient I would get that post that you CRIDers always get to that takes you out of the game.

Anyone that would grant this statement has no idea what the scientific method is, what a theory is, and hasn't the smallest fathoming of TToE.

You have marginalized yourself through your ignorance.

[VadeRetro]

It appears the challenge has been posted twice now, at 160 and 248. All the replies thus far are by evos.

[Just mythoughts]

Big big words for a scientific methodologists.

[jennyp]

It appears the challenge has been posted twice now, at 160 and 248. All the replies thus far are by evos.

The lesson? Double down. Bring up the challenge every time one of us posts the line-up of skulls. Maybe in a few months someone will step up to the plate. :-)

[Ichneumon]

Darwin: Headed for the Ash-Heap

Dream on. The ignorant (ignorant of the vast, well-established firm foundation of evolutionary biology) have been predicting that was about to happen "any day now" for oh, 150 years now.

For some perspective, check out this web page on The Imminent Demise of Evolution. Anti-evolutionists have been continuously predicting that evolution was about to come crashing down any day now since 1840... That page contains quotes predicting the "any day now" crash of evolution from 1840, 1850, 1878, 1895, 1903, 1904, 1905, 1912, 1922, 1929, 1935, 1940, 1961, 1963, 1970, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.

Sample:

"It must be stated that the supremacy of this philosophy has not been such as was predicted by its defenders at the outset. A mere glance at the history of the theory during the four decades that it has been before the public shows that the beginning of the end is at hand."
-- Prof. Zockler, The Other Side of Evolution, 1903, p. 31-32 cited in Ronald L. Numbers, Creationism In Twentieth-Century America: A Ten-Volume Anthology of Documents, 1903-1961 (New York & London, Garland Publishing, 1995)

But surely, you're finally right *this* time, eh? Dream on.

You guys crack me up.

Meanwhile, evolutionary biology has only become more and more solid as more evidence has been examined and more research has been done. In fact, in the past 10-15 years, with the explosion of data flooding in with the advent of rapid DNA sequencing techniques, the amount of evidence supporting evolution, in so many different cross-confirming ways, has become so massive that for all practical purposes, the "debate" is *over*. The reality of evolutionary common descent is so vastly overwhelming in the DNA, and evolutionary histories can be "read" from the DNA so easily, that no one who is actually familiar with the evidence doubts the reality of common ancestry. Even the so-called "leaders" of the "design movement", like Behe and Dembski, admit the reality of evolutionary common descent.

There have been hundreds of thousands of papers on the evolutionary findings in molecular biology and DNA since those fields became possible.

Here for example are 4000+ papers on evolutionary findings in DNA. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. A PubMed search on the same keywords returns 47,000+ papers, but they don't provide an easy way to link to search results. Meanwhile, a similar PubMed search for "Intelligent Design" in conjunction with "DNA" returns one (1) paper, and that's not even about "ID", it's just a paper that happens to mention the phrase "intelligent design" in the context of careful crafting of gene therapy treatments. So the score is evolution: 47000+, ID: zero.

Also, several cluless individuals on this thread have tried to claim that transitional fossils are lacking, because they've made the mistake of reading creationist sources and then believing them. Note: Trying to "learn" about science from anti-evolution creationists is like trying to "learn" about conservatism from Michael Moore, and for exactly the same reasons.

Absence of transition fossils, eh? Try reading science journals for a change instead of all those creationist pamphlets, you might actually learn something. Not only is there not an "absence" of transitional fossils, there are THOUSANDS:

Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils.

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record

On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"

The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

No transitional fossils? Here's a challenge...

Phylum Level Evolution

Paleontology: The Fossil Record of Life

Cuffey: Transitional Fossils

What Is A Transitional Fossil?

More Evidence for Transitional Fossils

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Transitional Forms of Whales

Fossil Horses FAQs

PALAEOS: The Trace of Life on Earth

Mammaliformes: Docodonta

Transitional Fossil Species And Modes of Speciation

Evolution and the Fossil Record

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record

Transitional fossil sequence from dinosaur to bird

Transitional fossil sequence from fish to elephant

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

And that's just the barest tip of the iceberg. Then of course there are literally gigabytes of DNA analyses which clearly establish common ancestry, not to mention scores of other lines of evidence cross-validating the same findings, and so on, and so on...

Meanwhile:

What I really have great respect for (sarcasm here), are those evolution believing scientists who REFUSE to debate non-scientists.

There are a lot of conservatives who would refuse to debate Michael Moore too. Ponder why and then you'll begin to undersatnd why a number of evolutionary biologists refuse to debate anti-evolutionists.

Another confused person wrote:

Well said...all thoughts on origins come down to faith... faith in secular humanism, OR faith in special creation. Both are faith!

Nonsense. First, evolutionary biology in no way rests on "secular humanism". One would have to be grossly ignorant of the science to swallow such idiocy, and be so blind as to not see that millions of Christians accept the validity of evolutionary biology.

Second, evolutionary biology rests on vast amounts of evidence and research along multiple independent cross-confirming lines. "Faith" is what one needs when one *lacks* positive evidence which can be cross-validated. Evolutionary biology rests of vast mountains of evidence, no "faith" is required. Here, this might help the confused individual understand his error: Do You Believe in Evolution?

Another person not too familiar with this topic wrote:

Here is one source: Just one for now: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Uh huh. Sure. Every time I have double-checked an anti-evolution page at AiG, I have found it to be laughably incompetent and shockingly dishonest. That's about par for the course for all anti-evolution sites, unfortunately. If y'all would like to pick your favorite two or three "best" anti-evolution arguments from AiG, I'll be glad to explain to you in detail what's wrong with them, but for a general overview of the many and varied errors and misrepresentations on AiG, see: this page of links to AiG critiques.

For those who are actually interested in following up on the vast amounts of scientific evidence for evolution, here's a good starting "tip-of-the-iceberg" starting point:

[From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Version 2.85

Copyright © 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

[Last Update: April 15, 2005]

Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes.

Introduction

volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

Outline

Introduction Universal Common Descent Defined Evidence for Common Descent is Independent of Mechanism What Counts as Scientific Evidence Other Explanations for the Biology How to Cite This Document Scientific Evidence and the Scientific Method Phylogenetics introduction Figure 1: A consensus universal phylogeny Cladistics and phylogenetic reconstruction Maximum parsimony Maximum likelihood Distance matrix methods Statistical support for phylogenies Does phylogenetic inference find correct trees? Caveats with determining phylogenetic trees	Part I. A unique, historical phylogenetic tree Unity of life Nested hierarchies Convergence of independent phylogenies Statistics of incongruent phylogenies Transitional forms Reptile-birds Reptile-mammals Ape-humans Legged whales Legged seacows Chronology of common ancestors	Part 2. Past history Anatomical vestiges Atavisms Whales with hindlimbs Humans tails Molecular vestiges Ontogeny and developmental biology Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches Snake embryos with legs Embryonic human tail Marsupial eggshell and caruncle Present biogeography Past biogeography Marsupials Horses Apes and humans
Part 3. Evolutionary opportunism Anatomical parahomology Molecular parahomology Anatomical convergence Molecular convergence Anatomical suboptimal function Molecular suboptimal function	Part 4. Molecular evidence Protein functional redundancy DNA functional redundancy Transposons Redundant pseudogenes Endogenous retroviruses	Part 5. Change Genetic Morphological Functional The strange past Stages of speciation Speciation events Morphological rates Genetic rates Closing remarks

[hail to the chief]

What you won't acknowledge is that not every theist believes in the God of the Bible, or even any other Abrahamic God.

[Just mythoughts]

TIME will tell how long darwin gets propped up, personally I kinda like that word "heap" when talking about darwin's TOE.

[spintreebob]

The anti-science is in those who claim to be scientists and have closed minds.

Political Correctness doesn't dominate the hard sciences as much as the social sciences. But it does require people to have a reverence for science. Anyone who lacks that reverence is called anti-science in the same way that people who questioned the Pope were called anti-Christ a couple hundred years ago.

[microgood]

Darwin properly deserves to be grouped with Adam Smith and the Founding Founders, as one of the Enlightenment philosophers -- perhaps one of the last, before the horrors of the 20th Century were unleashed by lesser minds.

Actually that is a pretty good explanation. The only thing I would point out is that in a sense Adam Smith represented the post-Enlightenment period in because he believed in the self-organization of living things and life, (liberty, captalism, individualism) whereas during most of the Enlightenment period it was thought that organization had to be provided in a top down manner with rational leaders imposing order on populations (rational nation states,etc.). The shift back to the individual, liberty, and the self-organization implied by evolution is what ushered in the Romantic period and represented the end of the Enlightenment period.

[Ichneumon]

     THE ANTI-EVOLUTION GAME
                -----------------------
 
Here's an opportunity to see how good you are at refuting evolution
scientifically. That means using science, not faith. If you have faith
that evolution is false, that's great for you but has nothing to do
with science.
 
HOW TO PLAY
 
Just write a series of statements showing either inadequacy in the
basic tenets of evolution, or contradictory evidence.
 
It is not necessary to absolutely disprove evolution, just give us
something to rock conventional science.
 
Your statements will be evaluated and assigned points. 10 points wins.
 
PROCEDURE
 
1. To enter the game, leave a post declaring your intention to play.
You may start making statements in that post if you like.
 
2. You will then have 60 days to make as many posts as you like with
statements for the game. If you do not make 10 points in those 60 days
you will have to start over.
 
3. All posts in the game should have ANTI-EVOLUTION GAME as the
first line and contain only statements relevant to the game.
Anything else will not be counted.
 
WINNING
 
I can't give away cadillacs or trips to Hawaii.
But if you can get 10 points your name will go on a public
list of succesful challengers of evolution, a list that is currently
empty.

 
SCORING
 
        Type of Statement                                       Points
 
Observation of spontaneous generation of a modern lifeform
either from nothing or from nonliving elements.                  5
 
Explanation of how totally independent dating methods agree
so well if the dates they show are wrong.                        5
 
Evidence showing that all remains of Earth are younger than
1 million years.                                                 3
 
Example of total genetic discontinuity between two species
considered closely related by conventional science.              2
 
Example of two species considered separated by over 100
million years of time by conventional science found to           2
be contemporaneous.
 
Example of a fossil considered over 2 million years old by
conventional science showing the exact same genetic makeup as
a modern member of the same species.                             1
 
Correct statement of the theory of evolution.                    1
 
Any other single statement showing you understand evolution.     1
 
Any quote from secondary sources.                               -1
 
Any statement mischaracterizing evolution.                      -1
 
Misunderstanding of the difference between theory and fact.     -2
 
Misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.              -2
 
Misunderstanding of entropy, order, randomness or
complexity.                                                     -2
 
Misunderstanding of the use of C-14 dating.                     -2
 
Misunderstanding of isochron dating.                            -2
 
Misunderstanding of nuclear decay.                              -2
 
Misunderstanding of the speed of light.                         -2
 
Appeal to supernatural entities. Such is outside the
framework of science.                                           -2
 
Misquoting or distorting someone's statement.                   -3
 
Mischaracterizing a disagreement on the hows of evolution
as doubt of the fact of evolution.                              -4
 
Appeal to your own ignorance "I don't see how else..."
is a description of your personal inadequacy, not that
of conventional science.                                        -4
 
Outright lie. It doesn't matter if you didn't know it
was a lie.                                                      -5
 
Use of argument already thoroughly refuted. You are
responsible for looking these things up.                        -5
 
Appeal to moral consequences. That has no bearing on
truth value.                                                    -5
 
 
GOOD LUCK

[spintreebob]

It is difficult to disprove a theory that is incomplete. Furthermore, most evolutionists today would not call themselves Darwinists.

It is a Tower-of-Babel arrogance for both sides of the debate to claim that they are right and the other side is wrong when neither side has sufficient evidence to support anything but their imagination of how it might have been.

[BagelFace]

Thanks for including me as a recipient on your rambling diatribe, you nut! I'd like to think I'm on your side, being thoroughly convinced of evolution as I am, but who the heck is going to read all that drivel? What case of mental paresis would even both to write it? To paraphrase a great and historically important American: "I think that I agree with everything you're saying, but oh how I wish you'd shut up."

[Ken H]

It's like the Cubs fans predicting this will be the year they win the World Series.

(post bookmarked for reference)

[Miss Behave]

What the aitch?

Please take me off of your strange ping list.