Posted on 03/02/2007 7:18:55 PM PST by balch3
recently found myself in a conversation with two college undergraduates, both of them seniors in the natural sciences (physics and biochemistry, respectively). At one point we were discussing alchemy, which they knew as a pre-modern attempt to transmute lead into gold. I asked them whether they could name any famous alchemists. They could not, though one of them dimly recalled hearing of “someone whose name began with A.”
I then predicted that Darwinian evolution would eventually fade into the same obscurity that now shrouds alchemy. Although I knew from previous conversations that my young friends were skeptical of Darwinian theory, they expressed considerable surprise at my prediction, if only because Darwinism is presently held in such high esteem by their professors.
So I proceeded to explain the basis for my prediction.
First, Darwinism is similar to alchemy in purporting to hold the key to transmutation. Alchemists sought the secret of turning lead into gold; Darwinists think they already possess the secret of turning bacteria into baboons.
The alchemists, of course, were looking in the wrong place, expecting to find their secret in physical mixtures or chemical reactions, when transmutation of the elements had to wait for radically new discoveries in nuclear physics. Darwinists are also looking in the wrong place, expecting to explain large-scale evolution by DNA mutations and natural selection, when abundant evidence already indicates that those processes cannot do the job. When biologists eventually unravel the true organizing principles of life, they will quickly put Darwinism behind them.
Of course, there are also significant differences between alchemy and Darwinism. One is that alchemists were self-consciously searching for The Answer; Darwinists think they already have It. Another is that alchemy contributed many insights, materials and tools to the development of modern chemistry; Darwinism has almost nothing to contribute to the development of biology. The insights, materials and tools used by Darwinists have almost all been lifted from animal and plant breeders, classical biology, Mendelian genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology – none of which owe anything to Darwin’s theory. The only things Darwinism can call its own are speculations about common ancestry and the transmutation of species that look increasingly implausible with each new piece of evidence.
Finally, alchemists knew that philosophy and theology were as integral to their discipline as observation and experimentation; Darwinists think they are above philosophy and theology. Even though Darwin’s Origin of Species and subsequent defenses of his theory are inextricably tied to arguments about why God supposedly wouldn’t have made living things the way they are, Darwinists invariably accuse their critics of being religiously motivated while they think they’re just dealing with the facts.
Which reminds me of another conversation I had fifteen years ago with some communists. I was a graduate student in biology at the time, and we were discussing the nature of science. I stated that no science is entirely objective – that is, based only on the facts and free of subjective elements. One of the communists replied that he knew of such a science. I asked him what it was, expecting him to say physics (for which I already had a well thought-out response). But his answer was “The Marxist theory of history.”
Darwinists, like Marxists, tend to be blind to their own commitment to materialistic philosophy. In this regard, Darwinists are more like Marxists than alchemists. So instead of becoming, like alchemy, just a dim recollection (“someone whose name began with D”), Darwinism might, like Marxism, persist for a while (after passing into oblivion everywhere else in the world) – on American college campuses.
There are means of verification other than experiment.
Until recently, astronomy was not experimental. In the absence of experimentation, hypotheses can be tested if they predict naturally occurring phenomena, particularly if the results of observations rule out competing hypotheses.
The flawed article with the flawed analysis of a flawed interpretation of Darwin's Book? -- No.
"germs to apes to man."
What about 'em? DNA is a strand. So is life.
Okay.
I like the solidity of experiments with controls, but okay.
You want controlled laboratory demonstrations of evolution?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1634489/posts
"Care to expound upon that FRiend?"
Well, the preliminary statement was "germs to apes to man."
That's like saying Alpha Centauri to Beta Centauri to Pluto.
From a germ's perspective, apes are indistinguishable from man. For many germs, that is literally true.
But evolutionarily, to get from a germ to any higher organism, collosal steps must be taken. First the leap to multicelled organisms, then to skeletal and neural structures, and then the whole development of eyes, ears, feet and so forth. It would take billions of years.
To get from an ape to a man would take only a couple of million years. A caveman could do it.
The fascinating thing is that all three, germ, ape, and man share the same kind of DNA. This indicates they are related. If we stretch out the strand of life, it is considerably longer than you might guess, even for a germ.
So too, the lineage of life that leads to any creature is a long one. According to "Darwinian" theories, each species can be related back to primordial ancestors of greater and greater simplicity, like strands of a completely unraveled rope.
I thought fruit fly, (drosophila melanogaster), experiments were fairly demonstrative.
The only thing that experiment proved was that bacteria could be forced to adapt to the heat stress.
I would appreciate it if they now breed or brew some bacteria to produce gasoline from grass clippings and oak leaves. (See butanol.com)
That's the nature of controlled experiments. Cite a classic experiment in chemistry or physics that demonstrates more than the principle under investigation.
That was my point.
I got the impression that had thought they were able to point to a specific instance where mutation was induced. I didn't read closely the entire experiment, but I didn't come away convinced they had disclosed that.
That may not be true and could well be false.
Except for religion and government, I can't think of any areas where we don't know a lot more than we did 500 years ago, certainly not in the scientific areas and that includes evolution.
I think your problem with the theory of evolution is that it works too well. It is kind of like quantum mechanics, the math works and gives accurate predictions, but the basic understanding of what is happening is missing.
Mutations aren't induced, as a rule. They happen. In this instance, one of the conclusions is that point mutations saturated the available list of possible changes. In other words, mutations explored all the possibilities, and some were useful.
If mutations could always solve every problem confronted by organisms, there would be no extinction and we would all die of disease. (Or life would be very different, anyway.)
Alcontumely?
Ignorance for ignorant people.
One concept that should be realized is that in any population, the organisms at the fringes of survivability are under pressure to adapt.
This is where mutation affords an advantage, and an opportunity to bloom into the formerly forbidden territory.
More DI nonsense. The fact is that genetics, biochemistry and nolecular biology came after Darwin and all offered tests of evolution. These newer branches of science not only are consistent with evolution, but were logically foreseen by evolution. I have no idea what 'evidence' DI is pulling out of it's solid waste sphincter, but it certainly is not diminishing the validity of evolution. DI's work may be better described as propaganda to elicit donations in order to produce more propaganda.
Your posts have rudimentary elements of science, but this statement of yours indicats you do not undestand the scientific method. Science can prove nothing. The tests you descibe are attempts at falsification. They do not consitute proof, but do proffer consistency.
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.